|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
113747
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
International Relations (IR) has seen renewed interest in the nuanced insights of Hans Morgenthau which had long been obscured by neorealism. This new "reflexive realism," however, far from exhausts the range of Morgenthau's thinking about politics or social theory. In the 1960s, Morgenthau lamented the inability of modern thinking to recognize the connections between power and love, which he argued was symptomatic of the inability to fully understand either one. For Morgenthau, both power and love were rooted in the need to overcome the loneliness of the human condition. Through pursuits of both power and love, people seek, through others, to avoid the self's insufficiency. Yet, these pursuits are mutually subversive. The frustration of love blends into the imposition of power, and the pursuit of power is ultimately an extension of the search for love. In exploring these issues, this paper argues that Morgenthau's insights have implications for at least three core issues of contemporary concern in IR. First, they suggest fresh perspectives on recent discussions of human nature in IR. Second, Morgenthau's analysis contributes to the burgeoning interest in emotions in IR, pointing to the neglect of love in this literature, and illustrates his attempt to theorize what may be called the affective limits of the self. Third, these insights can be used to enrich recent discussions of realist constructivism in IR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
096578
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
121855
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A growing body of critical and reflexive international relations (IR) realism draws on the work of Hans Morgenthau. While not without merit, I argue that these appropriations rely on selective - perhaps even wishful - readings of Morgenthau's work: the reflexivity that he calls for, I argue, is not matched by what his theory actually delivers. Raising that distinction, I then trace out its consequences for contemporary critical and reflexive IR realists, in two steps. First, I identify similar reflexive shortcomings in recent work by neoclassical realist Randall Schweller. These, I suggest, point to abiding challenges to which contemporary critical/reflexive realism must prove itself equal. I then survey the notions of reflexivity at work in the critical/reflexive realism of Michael C. Williams and Richard Ned Lebow. Do they go far enough? Do they answer those challenges? I conclude by arguing that Morgenthau's legacy for critical and reflexive realism should be reconsidered: properly understood, his work signals an impasse that is general to IR as a discipline. Signaling the depth of that impasse constitutes a lasting legacy, with which critical/reflexive realists have not yet dealt adequately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|